Behavioural Approach to Political Science

Behaviouralism appeared mainly as a reaction against the shortcomings of the traditional approaches. It was an attempt by a group of mainly American political scientists to gather ‘scientific’ knowledge about politics. Two most important things about behaviouralism to be noted are – (i) that behaviouralists freely borrow lessons from the researches of other social sciences like psychology, sociology, anthropology etc. and (ii) that behaviouralism’s main focus is on ‘political behaviour.’ Behaviouralism takes the individual person as the unit for political analysis. In the behavioural view, group or collective actions are the results of individual behaviours. Political institutions are behaviour systems. Behavioural research does not emphasise the study of political institutions like the government or offices like that of the Prime Minister or the President. It analyses the behaviour of the individuals which shape these institutions and offices. To understand the behavioural patter of individuals, behaviouralism naturally had to probe into sociological, psychological or anthropological factors that go to shape individual behaviour. Thus this approach becomes inextricably bound up with other social sciences and has to borrow freely from the researches in those fields. Behaviouralism is basically a protest movement against the excessive formalism and value orientation of the traditional approaches and give a scientific character to researches in politics.

The principal characteristics of behaviouralism, according to Kirkpatrick are- 

(1) Not political institutions but behaviour of individuals is the basic unit of research in Political Science. 

(2) Political Science is a social science and, as a social science, it is behavioural science. 

(3) Observation, classification, collection and measurement of data and use of statistical method are the principal tools of research in Political Science, and finally, 

(4) construction of systematic empirical theory is the goal of political science.

This approach is not altogether absent in traditional studies. For example, Hobbes, Locke or Mill based their theories on their perceptions of human behaviour. In this sense, the modern behaviouralists only extend the basic concerns of the traditionalists.

Behaviouralism has been criticised on several counts. First, they do not do something new, something totally unknown to Political Science before them. Ever since Aristotle, political scientists observed and analysed human behaviour to arrive at political generalisations. Secondly, their zeal to raise Political Science to the status of pure science is doomed to failure for, there is not much scope in this field for the kind of experiments that natural scientists can conduct. Finally, it is vain to seek to make politics totally value free. Even the noted behaviouralists could not free themselves from their bias for liberal democracy.

But, then, it is not without value. Firstly, the attempt to adopt methods of science to obtain faultless results is itself laudable. Secondly, its integration of Political Science with other social sciences gives political science a new perspective and significance. And finally, behaviouralism has curbed excessive formalism and value orientation of the traditionalists and had given the subject an empirical base. That is why political scientists are today consulted by Presidents and Prime Ministers in matter of policy formulation. This approach has brought out political scientists from their academic grooves and has brought them face to face with real political situations.